Internet Blackout: 7,000 Sites Join Wikipedia

As many as 7,000 websites are participating today in protests of some form or another against the U.S. House Of Representatives’ Stop Online Piracy Act and the U.S. Senate’s companion Protect IP Act. Some are going dark. Others are calling attention to the issue in less dramatic ways. Among the more prominent are Wikipedia, Google, Reddit, WordPress, TwitPic, Cheezburger, BoingBoing, several gaming companies including Minecraft, and Mozilla, source of the Firefox web browser. Wikipedia, BoingBoing and Minecraft have gone dark. Others, like Google, are displaying home page illustrations or visual statements about censorship and urging visitors to contact their elected representatives.

MPAA CEO Chris Dodd criticized the protesters for “resorting to stunts that punish their users or turn them into their corporate pawns, rather than coming to the table to find solutions to a problem that all now seem to agree is very real and damaging.” Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), sponsor of SOPA, responded to Wikipedia going black: “It is ironic that a website dedicated to providing information is spreading misinformation about the Stop Online Piracy Act. The bill will not harm Wikipedia, domestic blogs or social networking sites. This publicity stunt does a disservice to its users by promoting fear instead of facts. Perhaps during the blackout, Internet users can look elsewhere for an accurate definition of online piracy.” Smith also said the House Judiciary Committee would go forward with a mark-up of the legislation in February.

102 Comments

Fan • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

The problem with these kind of black outs is that it just reminds people that they can get along just fine without you. Instead of throwing hissy fits about the fact they want to continue to facilitate property theft, these web companies should come up with a solution that addresses the concerns of companies that invest billions of dollars to create IP.

Dave • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

You are an idiot. You have no idea what is at stake here. First off, businesses need to deal with the reality that any file can be copied or transferred millions of times in seconds. That is today’s reality. But there are successful businesses disseminating these files in service oriented models. They need to invest and figure out how to provide those services not try to stymie progress through bribery, litigation, and censorship as they’ve always done every time tech has threatened them.

The bigger deal here is that they will take away the right to information and the freedom of expression. This is really about censoring the rising political voice on the internet. Politicians and Corporations are scared. There is a community forming questioning the system and they are growing.

Fan • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

I love how anyone with a dissenting view is an idiot! The technology companies are extremely quick to file lawsuits if they feel their intellectual property is infringed. The problem here is that there has been a massive shift in value perception. People now perceive entertainment as something that should be free, largely because they have been able to illegally download music, and more recently films, television and video games for a number of years. All of these forms of entertainment require massive investment, and the producers of that entertainment should be allowed to protect their property in exactly the same way that you can take action to protect against someone stealing any of your property. All these lofty technological and social arguments merely mask the fact that someone is stealing someone else’s property. All the while, the tech companies tacitly encourage the theft because it devalues the asset base of a competing form of entertainment, and encourages consumers to use their services because they can get stuff for free. This is not about right or wrong, this is pure economic warfare. Once Google via YouTube, Yahoo and all the other tech companies have established their foothold in the world of entertainment (as they are all doing) – they will suddenly become very concerned about copyright theft and take the steps they need to prevent it. Right now it serves their interests to do anything the can to harm and hinder the incumbent media corporations, so before calling people idiots take time to look a little deeper. Don’t regurgitate other people’s arguments, and if history has taught us anything – always follow the money. That’s what this is about.

Steve • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

You’re an idiot as well.

You should learn how to write and express yourself coherently.

Anonymous • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

When these tech companies have their ip infinged, would they happen to file the lawsuits in these things called courts using due process?

wickedeve • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

Excellent, Fan, thank you.

Anonymous • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

You keep referring Piracy is stealing, but stealing implies that the subject that is stolen is no longer in the hands of the original owner. However what most internet users do is make a copy of the said subject, to where it is still in the hands of the owner, it is just duplicated to reach more users. The subject still carries the name and the copyright of who was responsible for making and owning it, but it is just being more freely shared, which can and often does increase business flow for the owners of said subject.

Fan • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

Arrrrghhhh! This is the most common and most mistated argument of all time. Copyright is the right to control who copies your material, that’s why it is call copy-right. If you cannot control that right, your material has no economic value. If anyone can make a copy of my film and distribute it freely, how can I convince people to pay me for it? Simple answer – I can’t. People will always take the free route if it is an option. The only things that prevent copyright theft are deterrent to consumers, and stifling the supply of illegally obtained copies. Even if the studios implement the most hassle free online distribution at 99 cents a movie, as long as there are free copies available, people will still take the free option. People who make the argument – yeah but I only took a copy, you still have the original don’t have the first clue about copyright or the economic value that law creates and protects. Without it we would have no film, television, music, video games or books – there simply wouldn’t be any incentive for people to invest in those industries. We’d just be left with videos of Charlie biting his brother’s finger, and dogs shitting in the park – but hey, if that’s the world you want to live in, go for it.

Smartalec • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

Both are very smart comments from ‘Fan’. Thank you,

My question would be ‘why create anything when your achievement does not elevate any aspect of your life because no one needs to pay you?’ oh, this is communism. This is not free enterprise! it’s certainly a way to kill any kind of discovery, invention and creativity.

Let the market and the creators determine how and who gets paid and for what. The government regulating any aspect of this exchange is the real criminal, growing an even bigger government business of cronyism and gangsterism. Sorry… Just couldn’t help myself.

Megumi Tokada • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

Greetings from Japan. A brilliant submission. As is usually the case, talk of “anti-piracy” crusades, citing legitimacy of these bills, is nothing more than a side-show. This is, about silencing the ever growing voice that the internet is providing to the world’s increasingly united public. Governments are losing control (as is becomingly increasingly evident more so outside the U.S.), and within the US, uprisings are gathering strength, often, in grand part due to the free, and relatively unchecked dissemination of free information, blogs, posts, videos, etc.

These bills, are part of a coordinated effort, by the powers that be to curtail any threats to the administration. This has next to nothing to do with protecting the rights of artists. That, is merely shiny coin that’s being waved in your face, while the real trick is being performed with the other hand.

I wish I could convey my thoughts more clearly in English. But, I am limited in this. All I can say… is, I (as many of us in Japan) fear, that the last frontier of our freedom- the internet- is coming under increasingly fierce attack. There is no greater threat to any government (especially the US), than a well-informed public, with virtually unlimited access to information. Limiting what we can and cannot see, has always been a priority. Mind you, noone would ever name a new act or bill as “The Internet Restriction Act” or something similar… so instead, we’ll say- this is about internet piracy… and, taking down malicious foreign sites, etc, etc. Haven’t we seen this over and over again, during the past few decades? Euphemisms like “Patriot Act” or the recent NDAA, all presented in a manner that make it “sound” like a good thing, when in fact, they do far more damage to each every citizen, than good?

I wish more people would see through all the BS. I suppose the first step would be to get their news from independent online sources as opposed to major media outlets that are privately owned, and who’s content is carefully edited and repackaged to serve the corporate/political interests. But, if bills like these will pass… the days of our access to any sites that boldly question the establishment- are numbered.

concerned • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

This is the argument which always troubles me. To say ” There is no greater threat to any government (especially the US), than a well-informed public, with virtually unlimited access to information” may be true, but is really not capturing the issue as it applies to copyrighted works online. Access to INFORMATION is not the same thing as access to ENTERTAINMENT. Access to free information on the internet is truly valuable and has been used for positive social change, and I doubt that anyone (other than possibly an encyclopedia company) would disagree with that statement. However, to hold that statement out as equally applying to the right to download a piece of music, television, film or other content that someone devoted resources and effort to create, is misguided and offensive. Society throughout recorded history has granted valuable rights to innovators as a motivation to continue such innovations – this includes patents, copyrights, trademarks – rewarding innovators improves society. To say everything online must be free and unfettered flies in the face of our historical experience as a society. If everything is free and nothing has value, why go outside and do anything other than watch that latest video of some kid farting on a candle or person falling down. It is a truly tragic direction that we travel should that be the result of the internet innovation.

TF • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

You did just fine expressing yourself in English. You’re more articulate in English as a foreign language to you than most people are who have English as their native language. Very impressive. And very well put. I agree with you.

Anonymous • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

The problem is that most people, and many of the senators and representatives supporting the bills, don’t understand what the internet is for, or how it works. The reason these sites are protesting is that the bill would allow Hollywood lawyers to take down any site that has any (usually unintentional) links to infringing websites. It allows for the actual destruction of the internet and forces websites like wikipedia, a non-profit, to find these links themselves.

Fan • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

So? Has it occured to you that maybe we shouldn’t link to everything? Is it okay that Google searches link to some of the worst pornographic sites in the world? Or that they provide links to criminal, or hate websites? Maybe we need to filter the web more carefully? We live in a world where kids can become thieves in the comfort of their own homes by illegally downloading movies and music, where they can see horrific violence or pornography at the push of a button. The Internet has given us some great things, but it is not in and of itself a force for good. Just as in any field of human endeavor, we need filters and rules to help manage it.

Will • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

So? Has it occured to you that maybe we shouldn’t link to everything? Is it okay that Google searches link to some of the worst pornographic sites in the world? Or that they provide links to criminal, or hate websites? Maybe we need to filter the web more carefully? We live in a world where kids can become thieves in the comfort of their own homes by illegally downloading movies and music, where they can see horrific violence or pornography at the push of a button. The Internet has given us some great things, but it is not in and of itself a force for good. Just as in any field of human endeavor, we need filters and rules to help manage it.

The gigantic hole in this comment, is the simple fact that you’re wanting the government to do what parents should be doing on their own, and promoting parental laziness. I never ventured into those areas of the web until I was much older, due to my parents monitoring my usage. I also was never able to get my hands on those nice dirty porno magazines. So instead of supporting the government in this way, why not look to the parents? I’ve a 2 year old daughter who is going to have her internet closely monitored, should I allow her to use a computer un-supervised until she’s of age.

Jack • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

And the giant hole in your argument is always shifting the blame on the parents. “Why can’t we sell crack-cocaine in 7-11’s? It’s up to the parents to teach their kids!” Or how about cigarette vending machines at high schools and junior highs?

Likewise porn is bad for society, period. BY AND LARGE, it’s not performance art, it’s paying young women to humiliate and degrade themselves on camera. Sure, you can try to justify it in your head, but let’s see how you feel when it’s YOUR DAUGHTER on camera. And let’s not forget the fact pornstars admit you can’t help contracting several STD’s while “working” in the business.

If it’s illegal for me to pay a woman to have sex in a hotel room, then it shouldn’t be legal for me to tape it, put it on the internet and charge money for the entire world to see.

Prostitution is bad for our communities and porn is nothing more than taped-prostitution.

Everyone needs some regulations, be it governement, wall street, healthcare, ect. I can’t believe all you people crying over the fact that you might not be able to steal movies, music and women’s self-respect anymore.

I feel sorry for your kids…

Smartalec • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

Yes Will! And Jack, who is going to choose the regulators? What will the criteria be? What gang is going to force you to abide by the regulations? Am I going to pay for the brown shirts that will force you to abide by the regulations me and my friends decide we all should abide by? And, Jack, will you be okay with what I ‘they’ decide your daughter should see or not?

Come on! This is a much bigger debate than the Internet issues. This is about individual responsibility,Integrity and common sense.

firebrand • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

Spoken like a true fascist.

Sam • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

Well, somebody’s upset their free porn is being threatened.

Jason • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

So it isn’t just filtering pirate sites, now we should filter porn and anything else we find objectionable? Why don’t you just move to China and cut out the middle-man?

Fish • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

There is no hope in trying to “stop” or “block” bad websites. They will always exist. When we try to treat this situation like property or items in the 1900s, you know, we get into trouble and we punish the innocent. The SOPA bill flat out gives the gov’t the right to punish a site based on its user’s actions, which isn’t fair. Would we punish the state of New York because some of its citizens do bad things? No. It’s nonsense, which is why the biggest sites, Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter, Google, all oppose it.

Megumi Tokada • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

Your sentiments on greater internet control, for all the “evils” that unchecked freedom provides, are actually very popular…

…in Communist China.

TF • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

Yikes! Talk about missing the point. Who decides what the “right” restrictions should be? You? The government (God forbid)? Any kind of restrictions are the thin end of the wedge. It’s horrifying some people cannot see that.

Only an industry as arrogant and self-obsessed as Hollywood could manage to shoot themselves in the foot over an issue that they *should* have public sympathy for. Time to take a long hard look in the mirror rather than buying off former and current politicians to support an over-broad piece of legislation.

star jonestown • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

Thanks for insulting everyone in the film, publishing and music business, DH, we’re really grateful that you came to a film site to do so.

The public isn’t sympathetic. The music business was cut in half by piracy… The public isn’t sympathetic because EVERYONE LIKES FREE STUFF.

The 7,000 figure seems extremely dramatic considering that it is dataless and sourceless. Deadline appears to be taking a political position on this issue without coming out and saying so.

BoingBoing’s official statement is so warped, so Chicken Little-ish and so self-dramatic that it’s hilarious.

This is a trade war between those who make content and those who make money enabling & facilitating its theft. All Big Tech’s propaganda may work on tech-driven blogs, but there’s a strange smell to their demand that Everything Be Free All the Time.

dave anthony • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

Louis CK obliterated your argument last month

Try again.

derp • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

All those poor studio executives–I often lie awake late at night sick with worry: how can such honest, forthright people live on their meager incomes?

Fan • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

If you want to make this about incomes, take a look at the salaries and incentives of the executives trying to block this bill. Google, Facebook etc dwarf anything big media make.

JohnT • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

The Google boys aren’t out there acting like they have no money.

Fan • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

I love the one sided nature of this argument. The tech companies have spent exactly the same amount of money lobbying politicians. This is not altruism, they are investing to try to maintain the status quo, which allows them to make a great deal of money from the theft of other people’s content.

Tech Company • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

You’re an idiot. Opposition to SOPA and PIPA has nothing to do with piracy and everything to do with the way it attempts to deal with it. This legislation was written by morons who don’t have a clue how the internet works, which is why all these tech companies who DO know how it works are complaining. Get a clue before you start mouthing off from your sideline seat.

Fan • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

Why do Internet bulletin boards attract so many angry people? How do you know where my seat is? Certainly not sideline…

TheSir • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

Well someone here understands it. Indeed, SOPA and PIPA have nothing to do with piracy and the companies who are supporting it also don’t give a damn about piracy.

You cant stop piracy anyway and everybody knows that.

Duh • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

I find it ironic that Rep. Lamar Smith from the great state of Texas is fighting so vehemently for greater regulation and oversight by Congress from a bill spearheaded by democrat Chris Dodd.

Look, FAn – it’s a bad law and i don’t trust this Congress to monitor anything in a correct manner. Obamacare is a mess and so is the new financial law sponsored by the same Chris Dodd. This is no good – and if they want to address the problem then let’s craft legislation that makes sense.

CC • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

STOP SOPA

Jackadoodle • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

Where are Josh, Sam, Toby, CJ, Leo and Jed when we need them?

ConcernedCitizen • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

So true! I think that we need to call up Aaron Sorkin and see what he would do in this situation. :)

Joe • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

Lol. Gotta love Wikipedia and their claim of a free and open Internet.

There’s nothing free about the Internet. It’s a bunch of conglomerates getting rich selling bandwidth that they don’t even own to sell!

Fan • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

Too right. I love the fact they’ve managed to make this a fight between the little guy and big media! The tech companies could each buy big media ten times over. This is one group of rich companies fighting another group of even richer companies, and the world of the future isn’t one where everybody has an equal say on the Internet and the little guy wins. The world of the future is: you buy your goods through Amazon and Ebay. You get your information from Google. You socialize via Facebook, who mine your data like crazy to sell to third parties. You watch your movies and TV on YouTube (owned by Google). There will be stronger monopolies online than there have ever been in the real world because once a business hits a critical mass of traffic, it becomes the ‘winner’ in that economic category. And because it is not constrained by physical location, there is nothing competitors can do to outmanouvre the ‘winner’, who will always have more marketing dollars to spend and can attract the best talent. In the real world you can try to open a store in a neighborhood that doesn’t have a Walmart, but in the virtual world there is no getting way from Amazon – which is why we’ll see more and more retailers fulfilling via Amazon. The next thirty years will be fascinating from an economic standpoint because it will be interesting to see how Congress regulates against international monopolies.

losdos • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

Big Brother is that you?

Fan • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

That’s the point exactly. This is the replacement of one set of big companies with another even smaller set of big companies.

Maria • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

Fan you do realize that one of the biggest monopolies in the world is the Diamond Industry, right? Diamonds are one of the most abundant stones on the planet, yet this very large company controls just how many diamonds are released in a year, which spikes the demand for them way up, which in turn spikes the prices for them even higher, and every time some smaller company manages to find a small diamond vein, the large company produces massive amounts of the same type of diamond to drastically lower the price of it competition and then buys them out.

To the first comment in this thread (Fan), Wikipedia does not pirate any material, it is an informational site. Research before you post.

PIPA will effectively destroy the web as we know it. According to PIPA, if there is a video on YouTube that has a person in the background, lets say, drinking a Coke, the website will be blocked due to trademark infringement.

We do not need Big Brother on the web.

Rofl • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

Yer funny.

Yea there isn’t a single thing on Wikipedia that isn’t copyrighted. I’ve also got some excellent real estate on the moon for sale.

Or perhaps Apple and Windows will put a blur tool on their video editor to enable home users to blur out copyrighted symbols? There are simple solutions to all these problems – it isn’t the end of the Internet.

SP • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

“Or perhaps Apple and Windows will put a blur tool on their video editor to enable home users to blur out copyrighted symbols? There are simple solutions to all these problems…”

Yeah, or maybe they can write a GUI interface using visual basic to track the killers IP address!

I’m guessing you write for CSI, because you have no idea what you’re talking about.

awesomeisasawesomedoes • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

@SP: “I’m guessing you write for CSI, because you have no idea what you’re talking about.”

Awesome.

firebrand • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

No, it IS the end of the internet. The DNS filtering at the heart of what these bills are trying to do is exactly how the Chinese police the internet. It is NO different. And your lack of any knowledge about how the internet works (which seems to be the case with all backers of SOPA and PIPA) does not change that fact one bit. By the way, trying to change the subject to how Google/Amazon/tech companies/etc. are big companies just like the media conglomerates is nothing more than your pathetic attempt to distract from what these bills actually do to the internet. And it’s quite obvious that you have zero respect for the 1st Amendment and the freedom of speech/expression it affords us, based on your comments on this thread. You’re nothing more than a corporate tool trying to destroy whatever potential the internet has in fostering a free society.

Really • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

Like making people censor their own uploaded content? Make internet sites censor their users content?

Hm… there’s something about the Constitution and amendments and ‘freedom of speech’ that is fundamentally against that, isn’t there?

Fan • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

Freedom of speech already has plenty of protection. This is freedom of theft we’re tslking about.

Maria • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

It is not theft to have brand name material in videos, more than likely the person uploading those videos, bought the item so the fact that PIPA would actively remove a video that may have a brand name in it, that is against our rights. Everyone has the right to their own opinion, and the government is just using the piracy problem to cover up what exactly the bills that they are trying to pass will actually do. They do it in every bill that they pass, they say that it is for one specific problem, but yet inside the bill there are numerous other subjects addressed in it that no one really pays attention to. But we are, we are making a stand to fight this bill, and you need to educate yourself a bit more before you express your ignorant views on here.

derp • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

What are you a “Fan” of exactly?

Roy • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

It’s a step in the wrong direction regardless, this isn’t the governments fight, it belongs to the entertainment industry. This is equal to two siblings arguing, one getting aggrevated and telling their parents to put a stop to it instead of figuring it out on their own. Pathetic.

a lib lawyer • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

The following link is a good short summation of the arguments for and against. These current version of the bills won’t pass, but going forward, some version will, and should. The key distinction should be between foreign-based sites that engage in wholesale piracy (like PirateBay and all those sites selling bogus drugs online) and sites like Facebook that might contain minor instances of incidental infringements. Now if a facebook user is directing people to a site like PirateBay and facebook is made aware of the link, then the law should allow the IP holder to compel facebook to remove that user from facebook.

Folks, this is all a big game of poker- the big media companies know that the elements in the current bills are too much, so when they give them up, the passage of the “watered down” bills will seem like a defeat for them and a victory for Google et al.

Media companies are always looking for new ways to fight piracy. They’ve tried suing individual users, getting Internet service providers to take action against subscribers, and working with the U.S. government to shut down domains based in the United States. But none of those actions can stop overseas websites such as The Pirate Bay and MegaUpload from infringing copyrights, or prevent Internet users from accessing those sites.

Enter SOPA, in the U.S. House of Representatives, and PIPA, in the U.S. Senate. Both bills are aimed at foreign websites that infringe copyrighted material. The bills are commonly associated with media piracy, but may also apply to counterfeit consumer goods and medication.

Originally, both bills provided two methods for fighting copyright infringement on foreign websites. In one method, the U.S. Department of Justice could seek court orders requiring Internet service providers to block the domain names of infringing sites. For example, Comcast could prevent its customers from accessing thepiratebay.org, although the underlying IP address would still be reachable. This ISP-blocking provision was a major concern among Internet security experts, and both SOPA and PIPA have dropped it.

The other tool would allow rights holders to seek court orders requiring payment providers, advertisers, and search engines to stop doing business with an infringing site. In other words, rights holders would be able to request that funding be cut off from an infringing site, and that search links to that site be removed. The site in question would have five days to appeal any action taken.

Although the House and Senate bills are similar, SOPA is the more extreme of the two. It defines a “foreign infringing site” as any site that is “committing or facilitating” copyright infringement, whereas PIPA is limited to sites with “no significant use other than” copyright infringement. More details on SOPA and PIPA are available through the Library of Congress website.

Opponents of SOPA and PIPA believe that neither piece of legislation does enough to protect against false accusations. As the Electronic Frontier Foundation argues, provisions in the bill grant immunity to payment processors and ad networks that cut off sites based on a reasonable belief of infringement, so even if claims turn out to be false, only the site suffers.

SOPA and PIPA supporters argue that prophecies of a broken Internet are overblown. Cary Sherman, CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America, writes that SOPA clearly defines infringing sites based on Supreme Court holdings and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, and requires rights holders to follow a strict set of rules when trying to get payment cut off to an infringing site. False claims, Sherman argues, “can result in damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees.”

Sherman also points out that previous actions against infringing sites, such as the MGM vs. Grokster case in 2005, triggered similar doomsday predictions from the tech industry, yet digital music innovation has flourished since then.

Bryan • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

I’m a high school teacher, and so it should come as no surprise that I value the exchange of information and ideas. Anything which would make it harder to exchange information is therefore something which I would seek to prevent. I agree that business which invest huge sums of money into their products should not have to put up with piracy and that there should be legal protections in place to help those businesses limit their losses to theft.

However, I do not support the current versions of SOPA and PIPA because they are written too broadly. In this current day of “give them an inch and they’ll take a mile” we need to make sure that there are firm limits to the power that companies have in setting their lawyers on other websites. If the purpose of the law is to punish organizations or individuals who are trying to make a profit or otherwise hurt another company, then I agree. However,companies like wikipedia that are both at the mercy of the general public and not seeking to make a profit or damage shouldn’t be punished.

I’ll support anti-piracy laws when I’m confident that the collateral damage to websites like wikipedia will be eliminated, or at least minimized.

anonymous • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

Hey Fan, I want you to look up a Supreme Court Case from 1996, Reno v. ACLU. The question of the case was does Congress have the power to ban patently offensive and obscene content on the web. The Supreme Court said that no Congress does not because the law in question the Communications Decency Act did not narrowly define patently offensive and obscene. They also stated that the internet is not like the physical world where you can set up zoning laws and determine which places are allowed to have such speech and which places are not. Using that logic the internet cannot be policed like the real world can. It too large and vast. Just like the real real world has individuals that say, and do things we don’t like, so does the internet. Speech shouldn’t be limited just some may find it offensive, as established by the Texas v Johnson case in 1984. To quote the Supreme court from the Reno v ACLU case, “True it is that many find some of the speech on the internet to be offensive…The absence of governmental regulation of internet content has unquestionably produced a kind of chaos…Just as the strength of out liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech the First Amendment protect.” I will agree with you that the tech companies are big business and have their own interest to protect, but if was not for them we would not have a tool that allows creative people to get their voices heard without having to go through the very entertainment industry that wants to censor it. If this bill goes through we no longer hear about music artist that made it big by distributing their content online. Their will no longer be writers that made a name for themselves bloggging before they got published. This is about the entertainment industry realizing that they are about to obsolete and therefore can’t take muti-lbillion dollar salaries for running a studio. If the power to create is in the hands of the people and thus democratized, then they will no longer have the money they need to continue the lifestyle they have become accustomed. You might respond that the tech companies are just as rich and self interested as the entertainment industry, my question to you is this then, if they are then why haven’t they already tried to cut out competition but doing what this bills would do on their own?

Fan • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

Appreciate the informed debate as opposed to the personal insults that seem to be de rigeur for the Internet. I’m not suggesting censorship, I was merely postulating the idea that unfettered, unregulated activity on the Internet may be no more desirable than it is in the financial markets. As a society we need to decide what is and is not acceptable for any technology or institution we utilize. To the people that argue against censorship because it somehow encourages irresponsible parenting, the simple fact is that many parents are already irresponsible and do not have adequate supervision over their parents. The public school high school drop out rate in the major cities is now over 50%. If kids can’t be kept in school, it is unlikely parents can exercise adequate control over what they see online. Returning to the main point of this argument, and to answer your question about why the multi-billion dollar tech companies have not already tried to cut out the competition, the simple reason is this: they lack the skills, expertise and relationships. Producing high quality television or movies is not as simple as many people like to think. It takes time to build the expertise to ensure production of quality content, to establish relationships with top talent, and to develop a way of monetizing the produced content. Right now the tech companies have the benefit of a double whammy. They can devalue the asset base of traditional media companies, while at the same time enabling their customers to find free content. Destroying a competitor’s asset base makes it harder for the competitor to raise money to finance new activity, it devalues the competitor, making them a cheap target for acquisition, and it leaves the competitor’s suppliers open to offers of business from new corporations. If you want to understand the destruction of asset value in simple terms, just look at the book value of MGM’s library from the Kerkorian sale to the Spyglass acquisition. While big media struggles to cope with the new realities, tech companies can take advantage, as they have been, to invest in production relationships with top talent, learn about the ins and outs of monetizing content, and do so at a time when prices for talent and completed product are depressed because the entertainment industry is in trouble. If you look at the trends within the entertainment business within the past few years, the big winners are tech. Once they have established successful entertainment divisions (or acquired a studio or two), the tech companies will suddenly find the will and ability to police content on the Internet. Until then, it is simply not in their interests to do so.

TF • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

For the love of God, please use paragraph breaks!

Ranola • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

If you’re a big brand why would you want your logo blurred anyway? It’s FREE PUBLICITY!!! As a marketer, I would want constant brand awareness especially with the the young internet users. Unless the content creator is marginalizing your brand in some sleazy or offensive manner you should just let it be.

Greg • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

Whitehouse came out against the laws over the weekend. From my understanding it saying you won’t be able to talk about pepsi or coke without violating the law. It does stifle freedom of speech. If theses law does pass. You can bet google, facebook, yahoo, EFF, ACLU twitter will immediately challenge it in court as unconstitutional. Some of the film makers & game makers are against these laws. So that really doesn’t fit in with MPAA statement. Even if google moved the search engine to another country. The U.S. could still block the DNS. I read all this from different articles. From my understanding if this law is passed & enforced you only be able to check email, online banking, shopping. Another words U.S. will become China. This is my opinion.

Nick O • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

Beware of who is commenting. Is Fan even in the United States? Read and see he spells a word not of American vernacular, but of King’s English. Does he belong here, or is someone manipulating the colour for the discussion?

Fan • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

You got me. My name is really Mai Ling and I live in Chaoyang District in Beijing. My comments are intended to destablize Google and thereby bring about a fall in the dollar, and the end of civilization as we know it. Just because someone has a wider vocabulary than you doesn’t mean they’re from another planet.

Chris • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

By colour, do you really mean color? Or are you just “someone who doesn’t belong here manipulating the COLOR for the discussion?”

Jason • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

I’m curious, how would either of these bills help keep the millions of jobs the MPAA/RIAA/etc claim?

If it truly only targets foreign websites, then it isn’t going to stop overseas piracy at all. Foreign pirates will still be able to access these sites with no problem.

Study after study has shown that pirates spend the same, if not more, money on entertainment products than non-pirates do. So how exactly will this help the economy at all?

It just seems like a power grab from an industry still stuck in the last century. Funny, coming from an industry that was started by a group of pirates who didn’t want to pay Edison’s licensing fee.

cj • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

I’m on both sides of the issue but you’re right that it puts Hollywood on the same team as Wall Street, (which after all, they are). This further alienates Sam Arkoff’s old audience target, the 19-year-old male who is suspicious, mistrustful and a hard marketing target even in better financial times. It shows how out of touch executive decision making is with pop culture.

W Scott • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

As someone who lives outside the US, I am watching this debate with great interest. In fact the UK has passed a similar Digital Economy Act.

The comments by Fan do boil down the primary argument (although by no means the entire argument) as seen by the MPAA, studios and music companies. For them this is about nothing more than what they perceive as property theft. But, for those such as myself, who enjoy watching US television, there is another facet to this argument. Often downloading episodes is the only method by which we, non-US residents, can continue watching shows that we enjoy.

At the time of writing, I can point to the last series of “Chuck” which, currently, has not be bought by a UK channel to air or “White Collar” where only the first series has ever aired. It is not our fault that the 100+ TV channels that the UK now enjoys prefers to program the way they do or when new series are bought, are often being broadcast on non-terrestial channels that are hardly known (due to a bare minimum of advertising) as is the case with “Castle”, “Suits”, “Community”, etc; so what alternative do we have especially in this world of global social media where the US friends are not censoring themselves as to what entertainment they see because the rest of the world can’t? I have yet to read of any studio publically announce that they are decreasing their slate for either film or TV production due to the perception of online downloading and it is not our fault that uploaders remove advertising, but then again as I reside outside the US, what is the point of me watching adverts for shops and brands that I can’t go to or buy? I’m sure that anyone reading this will be thinking, “why can’t you wait for the DVDs”, but then it is also technically illegal for me to buy US DVDs and ship them to my home country – another action courtesy the MPAA – although not enforced which makes it ridiculous. The act of television downloading goes both ways, and I could argue that non-monetary downloading of BBC programming affects UK residents more as they do not have advertising as the Corporation is basically funded via the Licence Fee.

Personally, I would prefer that US networks set up some kind of iTunes style payment system to enable non-US residents to download which could also count towards viewing figures, etc. If we like what we watch we will also watch on home country channels, buy the home country DVDs and as long as we know that the home country TV channels will continue to air the shows we like, we are also likely to stop the downloading.

Again, this is a rather simple example to a rather complex question, but people like myself do not do this with a thought of trying to get “something for nothing”, we do it because we do not see why we have to wait or why we cannot view the product.

concerned • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

More maddening comments in this dialogue. “we do it because we do not see why we have to wait or why we cannot view the product.” Really. You have just said you are not willing to purchase the DVD. The reason you have to wait and why you cannot view the product is exactly because you are taking it for free. Copyrights were granted to encourage people to share their creations with others for the benefit of all in society. It allows those who create written/filmed/photographed/painted projects which others want to enjoy, to do so without fear that those creations will be taken and used by others unless they approve. If someone spends a great deal of money and time and effort creating something you want to see, and they can not get an adequate return from you (or your country/territory, by extension) then they should be free to withhold that creation until they can realize an adequate return. It is just that simple. As I noted in an earlier comment, this is not about restricting the free flow of INFORMATION. It is about restricting the uncompensated flow of ENTERTAINMENT. That entertainment is not a right. It is a privilege.

TX-Anon • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

“Copyrights were granted to encourage people to share their creations with others for the benefit of all in society.”

I was under the impression that copyrights originated to protect widows and orphans from big business.

Am I remembering incorrectly?

Anthony • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

Let me start off by saying MPAA CEO Chris Dodd and Rep. Lamar Smith (writer of SOPA) are two of the biggest idiots on the face of this planet. It sure seems that they are really upset that websites are taking a stand against this. Hmm… I wonder why… Maybe because they don’t want these bills to gain publicity to the masses… Yeah, that could be it. These bills have been kept on hush ever since their inception with almost 0 coverage from national media. Now when major websites like Wikipedia and Reddit bring attention to this major issue, they want to cry like babies. I applaud Wikipedia and the 7000 other website for their participation. NO CENSORING OF THE INTERNET!

Roy • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

I dunno if idiot is appropriate, Dodd in the very least is a very successful thief and scumbag.

I surport blackout, congress wants to control everything! if the government control the internet once again they win, this means they control everything. They control almost everything, let the internet be the only thing they can not control!!!

Fan • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

Yeah, because the Internet is the wild west domain of the individual! That hokey argument might have been true a few years back, but right now:
49% of Internet Users Worldwide visit Google every day.
44% of Internet Users Worldwide visit Facebook every day.
34% of Internet Users Worldwide visit YouTube every day.
Source Alexa.com

The little man is screwed. We’re looking at the opportunity to develop the kind of global monopolies that tycoons like Ford and Rockerfeller could only have dreamed of. The fight over SOPA is one group of enormous companies lined up against another. Don’t be misled into thinking that this is about the rights of the comman man or woman.

SAW • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

Oh Fan please. The “little man” has more opportunities now than ever if one is smart, savvy, and not afraid to try new things.

Fan • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

Really? No institution has ever had the reach or control of these companies. And while individuals may still be able to make headway now, as the Internet landscape settles with a handful of dominant incumbents, in future the Internet will be just like every other field of human endeavor; a small number of people controlling it for their own benefit without consideration to the best interests of the masses.

SAW • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

The World Wide Web portion of the Internet which is really what the discussion is all about has been around since 1990 but really began the explosive growth starting in 1993 once browsers were created. The Internet itself originally known as ARPANET came online in 1969.

I point this out because in close to 20 years individuals still are able to carve out their niches and grow and make money. In this time, small and large companies have come and gone some successfully navigating the new waters, others floundering along the way.

The rapid development of technology demands that individuals and corporations adapt or die. Hollywood as someone else pointed out, is trying to take us back to pre-1994 when they were the only game in town and controlled the flow of information. Instead of taking advantage of the multimedia tools of digital distribution, Hollywood would rather destroy them and force everyone back to the old model under the guise of fighting piracy.

You and others who are pro SOPA/PIPA willfully disregard the far reaching destructive consequences these bills will have on the WWW/Internet and the greater economy.

Sid • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

Sandeep Parker is living proof of this. He does some great work on the web. I wish he’d get more tv work.

Walter • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

When even the libs sainted Obama is against the bill, you know it’s toast.

Judypants • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

WHY NOT CREATE AN ASCAP SYSTEM WHERE THESE SITES CAN USE WHATEVER MEDIA THEY PLEASE BUT HAVE TO PAY FOR EACH USE. FREEDOM AND COMMERCE.

Bobby Woods (Biased) • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

I think we can all agree this topic is a hot one, with much disagreement. Clearly, this bill is not ready in its current state.

Bobby Woods (Biased) • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

ps. for the record, our site is one of the 7000.

Alasdair • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

I feel like if your going to get a quote from the president of the MPAA talking about wikipedia you should also get a quote from Jimmy Wales.

No-no bias reporting please!

Even though all the companies that pay for Ads on your site support the bill. However having said that your Ad’s might actually come though a service like Google Ads.

I don’t think your deliberately writing a bias article… just it’d be nice to see what the other side of the story has to say in response.

PJ • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

These protest don’t make a lot of sense because we want to persuade Congress to vote a certain way, yet we do things that have no effect on them at all, just us. It’s like shooting ourselves in the foot. Why would they care? They still get paid and life goes on for them. They could care less if we never log onto the net as long as those “fees” are paid, and whether we use the internet or not, if we pay for the service, they get their cut. So, blacking out parts of the web doesn’t really mean that much to them, and we are still paying for the access to these blacked out websites.

JB • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

If these laws or law passes..
I guess maybe everyone would buy into a proxy service? That would be the business to get in…..IPO for a proxy service company. I bet some congress people are buy’n in.

Sid • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

Nah not proxy. VPN’s are the new thing. You can’t stop the jolly roger. He’ll fly no matter what guns are pointed at him.

Screw Hollywood. I’ll continue to download their movies a day after release and watch them in my home. Only if they’re good will I pay to see them in a cinema.

Fan • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

This is the problem. You don’t see anything wrong in stealing. You’re damaging the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people who work in the entertainment business, and millions of people who invest in entertainment corporations. But hey, you get free movies so who gives fuck, right? Carry on stealing, dude, because it makes you so cool. If one day you’re slapped with a lawsuit or face jail time for piracy, you can’t say you weren’t warned because I will put it clearly for you: You’re a criminal. What you’re doing is a crime.

Joe • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

I can’t wait until Hollywood is cleared of all the old, backwards idiots supporting SOPA via ‘the greatest invention of life,’ death (Steve Jobs).

Hollywood is attempting to cripple the greatest source of open knowledge civilization has ever known in the name of… TV & Movies. Or, more accurately, in the name of making sure every last man, woman, and child pay for TV & Movies.

I’m a TV producer. I went to film school. I like TV & Movies as much as just about anyone. But the idea that the importance of TV/Film is even in the same ballpark of that of an uncensored Internet is laughable.

jef • on Jan 17, 2012 11:48 pm

Chris Dodd is a worthless liar and criminal. How did he get those sweet heart loans on his 2nd, 3rd and 4th homes?

This in a nutshell proves how lost the studios are, they hire Chris Dodd. The MPAA should have hired someone from Apple, Google or Facebook, instead we get an crony loser further burying us.